Monday, September 25, 2006

Inconvenient truth (?)

(Painfully reproduced) below are the ingredients of a pack of Lay's potato chips that I have been munching on this evening:

Dehydrated potatoes, corn oil, food starch (unmodified and preglatinized), sugar, dextrose, salt, maltodextrin, mono- and diglycerides, partially hydrogenated soybean and cottonseed oil, monosodium glutamate, corn syrup solids, onion powder, tomato powder, modified food starch, hydrolyzed corn protein, soy lecithin, sodium caseinate, artificial color (Yellow 6 Lake, Yellow 5 Lake, Blue 2 Lake, Yellow 6, Red 40, Blue 1),spice, malic acid, sodium diacetate, natural flavor, citric acid, sodium citrate, disodium inosinate, and disodium guanylate.

I wonder, how little it takes to make normal, rational human beings believe that stuff like monosodium glutamate or Yellow 5 Lake or sodium diacetate is good for them. Well, maybe it is. Excuse m..(crunch).

Update: Read this news item about xylitol, a sugar-substitute used in chewing gums, candies and toothpaste, causing dog deaths. It is supposed to be harmless to humans, but I find it hard to believe.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Learning to fly



Cool video of a Suryakiran (IAF's aerial acrobatics team) performance set to Pink Floyd's Learning to Fly. The planes are Kiran Mark IIs, produced by HAL, and the ground scene is the Chennai coastline.

Video takes 20 seconds to load. Patience. Play full blast to enjoy. Juvenile, but nevertheless. Original post here.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Aaj ka Arjun

There are very few things that happen in America's foreign polity that dont make me cringe with dissapointment or disbelief. Among these rare exceptions were the events leading to the terror-suspect deal reached yesterday between the administration and a group of rebellious senators.

For those not keeping track, the US administration had proposed a bill which would allow the reinterpretation of the Geneva Convention's diktat on treatment of war prisoners in its application to terror suspects, so that CIA personnel and US troops can carry out "tough" interrogations without being exposed to personal legal liabilities. The stiffest opposition to the bill came from least expected quarters - a trio of Republican senators, all members of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. After a few days of taking tough positions, finally both parties gave concessions and reached a deal yesterday.

Many have argued since that the rebels have not achieved much, that most of the administration's original proposals in the bill remain intact, and I agree. However, what has left a good taste in the mouth is the very fact that barely two months before the mid-term elections, a bunch of senior ruling party politicians can take up a purely principled stand against their leader. It is one of those rare happenings that reaffirm your belief in politics. The last time I had the feeling was in May 2004, when Sonia Gandhi refused to become Prime Minister of India - a moment when, for a change, the issue in question was NOT petty political gains (for all the conspiracy stories and inspite of my own disdain for her capabilities, I firmly believe that the decision was of a purely personal nature).

The senator who is the leading light of the opposition to the interrogation bill is John McCain from Arizona. McCain is an ex-Navy pilot whose plane was shot down over North Vietnam, following which he was captured, tortured and imprisoned for over five years. McCain had locked horns with the administration earlier too, for instance when he was able to successfully implement the McCain Detainee Amendment in 2005 which ensured humane treatment for terror prisoners (though the latest deal is said to undermine it). There is something filmishly idealistic about a former prisoner of war putting so much at stake for protecting enemy prisoners. Cant help but draw a comparison with the best-known warrior with a conscientious heart - Arjun. We need more of this breed.

McCain is said to be a strong contender for the 2008 US presidential elections. Starry-eyed that I am at the moment, I am excited about it.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

The Devil's personal economist

Yesterday, the Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez spoke to the UN General Assembly in New York. At the start of his talk, Chávez held up a copy of Noam Chomsky’s “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” and recommended it to the American people. He called US consumerism “madness”, saying Americans have wasteful habits in using oil and energy. Consuming less should be an environmental priority, instead of looking for oil through the war in Iraq, he said.


But what has consuming got to do with the environment? At least, that’s what one would ask Chávez if one believed the Economist’s special survey on climate change in a recent issue. The fanatics at the magazine, who are the self-styled spokespersons for the business world and especially western interests, apparently see no connection between consumerism and environmental depredation. In the 24-page survey report made up of 14,000 words, the word “conservation” shows up only once (that too, as part of a proper noun). On the other hand, “mitigation” and “credit” (as in carbon credit) show up eight and nine times respectively. Obviously, while the business of environmental mitigation and carbon credits has become a big industry in itself, cutting down on consumption brings nothing to the cash register. Viva la Economista!


Also, during his talk Chavez called George W Bush a ‘devil’ and continued to refer to him by that word, at least eight times in his speech. Yes, in front of the UN General Assembly. One of his lines: “The president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world”. What a nutjob! Maybe not.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Keepers of the Narmada, look here

This Wednesday, something happened in California's capital Sacramento that is being hailed as a historical event in the state's complex narrative of water resources and the environment. Representatives of two warring groups - environmentalists and farmers - stood shoulder to shoulder and announced that they have reached a settlement about the fate of the Friant Dam and the San Joaquin river, in a dispute that was under litigation the past 18 years. Though this happening is more of an exception than a rule, one cannot help but yearn for a similar miracle to happen in the Narmada valley.

The history of this dispute goes back to 1942 when the Friant Dam was built by the federal government across the San Joaquin river to feed dry southern California with water from the wetter north. The dam brought irrigation to a million acres of farmland but severed the link between the spawning areas of Chinook salmon in the mountains and the ocean where these fish live all their lives. There were other environmental consequences but the Chinook became the poster-child of the evils of the Friant Dam.

In 1988, a group of environmental organisations led by the Natural Res Defence Council sued the federal government over the dam, and litigation dragged on. Last year, a couple of politicians representing California in Washington sat down with the farmers and environmentalists and urged them to reach a compromise instead of the legal route. This idea was reinforced by the judge presiding over the litigation telling the parties that lacking the delicate legal tools to work on this complex issue, the judgement was going to be an insensitive "meat cleaver"; it was best that a negotiated position was reached.

Wednesday, the two groups announced that a settlement had been reached - starting 2009, releases from the Friant Dam to the river below will be doubled allowing salmon runs, and farmers will get economic incentives as relief for their losses. By 2012, salmon will be reintroduced in the river. The most significant consequence is that this settlement paves the way for a mammoth project to rehabilitate the San Joaquin to its natural state. At the cost of $800 million, it will be one of the largest river restoration projects ever.

There are challenges to be faced yet. Marginal stake-holders who have been left out of the settlement may throw a spanner in the works, and raising funds from state and federal sources will be a looming challenge. Nevertheless, this development in itself represents a text-book case in environmental negotiations.

There are too many comparisons here with the Narmada valley projects to ignore. To begin with, the Narmada issue too is primarily being fought between agricultural interests (also some urban water supply interests) on one hand and other 'marginal' (at the risk of sounding condescending to the valley dwellers) interests on the other. The issue of the Sardar Sarovar Dam too went to court, dragged on for years, and the court's decision was indeed of the "meat cleaver" variety, much to the vocal dissapointment of Patkar and Co. The delay in court also causes losses to the state through power, irrigation and construction losses. The motivation behind the pro-dam group is good old economic gains, insurance against dry spells and the machismo of exercising entrenched state control over water. The anti-dam group is an amalgam of various motivations, chief among them being preserving the environment, protecting tribal interests and a general anti-development philosophy.

Unfortunately, for reasons that can be broadly engendered as stemming from a lack of a coherent democratic process manifest in mutual distrust and ridicule, nothing close to negotiations has happened in the Sardar Sarovar dispute. Both parties have held intransigent stances, their arrogance and self-assurance coming from broad international support for one side and unfailing local support from future beneficiaries for the other. Instead of reaching for a settlement, both sides have been shooting for a solution.

While the Sardar Sarovar issue now seems to be trundling towards a "solution", plenty more battles are forthcoming as other dams of the Narmada Valley Development Project are taken up in Madhya Pradesh. Anti-dam groups in the valley have often pointed out the post-modern dam demolition in the US as an example, pro-dam groups have pointed out the US' extensive irrigation infrastructure as one. Maybe both groups should now be looking up to the San Joaquin settlement.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Whats PHat, whats not...

Lately, because of an apparent change in the editorial policy of my local newspaper, my reading experience has been severely marred by excessive coverage of marginal happenings around the world such as the Ramsey case developments, the curious story of the imprisoned Austrian woman, and India's very own Prince falling down the borewell.

I am not to be mistaken as someone who doesnt like marginal happenings - on the contrary, I have sincerely followed the progress of baby Suri since before she was born, pursued the theory of why Atlanta's runaway bride had her bridal gown sewn a quarter inch short, and celebrated the arrival of Britney's second baby (all this, while waiting at the grocery checkout) - but after the Crocodile Hunter's death when my newspaper carried a straight-faced editorial titled "Irwin's death shows animals can be dangerous", I knew the proverbial shit had hit the fan.

Thus I came up with a tool to help me wade towards selective enlightenment. It is called the PH Index, short for Paris Hilton Index. It is readily adaptable to the individual taste of anyone who cares to plug variables into the following equation:

PH = mc /a

where,
mc is magnitude of media coverage (scaled between 1 and 100)
a is degree of real achievement or significance held by the person or event (scaled on a subjective scale between 1 and 100)

A higher PH number indicates that the news can be passed by, and a lower number otherwise. Both individuals and events are amenable to PH application. Of course, the index has been named after Ms Hilton, who holds the distinction of a perfect score of 100.

Henceforth, before I start reading my newspaper, I will quickly scan through each news item, evaluate its PH number, mark it in the margins with a red pen and when all that is done, sit back and enjoy the chosen articles. The covert objective of this strategy is that the sheer tedium of the exercise will kill the joy of reading the newspaper altogether, and push me towards more productive distractions. Thank you, Paris.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Vote for Chevron

When Californians go to vote in November for their governor and congressmen, they will also vote for or against a ballot initiative titled Proposition 87 which aims to raise $4 billion to support development of alternative energy by taxing state oil production over the next 10 years (California produces about 12% of domestic oil). The proposition will prohibit producers from passing on the tax to consumers (i.e., no increase of gas prices).

There is a good amount of campaigning being done by both the Yes and No groups through radio-TV and print ads. Like any other election in this country, this vote too is being decided by who is able to pour more money into the campaign, and newspaper analysts gleefully compare campaign inputs in $$, as if that itself is a sound measure of how worthy the proposition is.

Anyway, recently I heard the "No to Prop 87" radio ad and at the end of the ad, the spokesman spelled out who the sponsors of the ad were. Lo and behold, one of the sponsors was none other than....Chevron! The fact that Chevron has funded the anti-87 campaign is itself a walking-talking plea to voters' reason to vote otherwise. But given the fact that the pro-87 campaign is funded by "greentech" speculators (Vinod Khosla among them?) , what would one vote for - the emerging vested interests or the existing ones?

Update: Stephen Bing, a Hollywood-producer donated $40 million to the 'Yes to Prop 87' campaign, making it the biggest single contribution in California's history. Bing is a regular contributor to Democratic party and enviornmental causes. He is also said to have financial stakes in green energy.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Good news for the bums

The Economist of last week carries heartening news for public-transport aficionados. It says that "light-rails" (a cross between Mumbai locals and Kolkota trams) are getting more and more popular in the United States. Portland (Oregon) leads the way with its MAX, and is being followed down the route by a bunch of other cities.

One interesting thing I learnt from the article is that in the US, buses are thought of to be the refuge for the "poor, drunk and the illegal" while commuter trains have greater acceptability. My daily commute involves one leg on a bus so its funny that I never reflected on this, but the article is right. It now strikes me that most of my acquaintances on the bus are school students (from poorer families who cannot afford to pay for the school bus), old people on assistance and the regular entrouge of bums. A couple of Latinos who do service jobs are the only other work riders. On the other hand, a lot of people on the light rail are park-and-riding white-collared downtown workers.

With all the optimism, the article raises a key question - inspite of the growth in public transit, is it enough to lure people out of their cars? Enticements such as wireless on Caltrain near Palo Alto and on Sound Transit in Seattle might pull some people, but the main enticement will of course be high gas prices. Transit systems have detailed statistics of changes in ridership numbers, but I have my own little survey. As of today, I am the only one in my office who takes public transit. I will be watching that as gas goes sky high. One co-worker speculates that the 0.3 miles of walk to the station from our office wont seem such a lot to him when gas prices are $5 per gallon.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Circle of reason

Today morning, reading Robert Fisk's Pity the Nation - The Abduction of Lebanon, one particular paragraph knocked the breath out of me. the book about the events of 1982, when Fisk was a journalist based in Lebanon for a British newspaper, covering the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and seige of Beirut. The 1982 invasion was in response to mischief by PLO militants (like by the Hizbullah in 2006) and led to large-scale victimization of Lebanese as well as Palestinian civilians.

Reflecting on the savagery of the Israeli air bombings of 1982 and the devastation they wrought, Fisk writes (abridged):

What would be the result of all this? What would happen in a year or in five years' time to a people who were subjected to this unprecedented military onslaught, bombed and shelled by outsiders with munitions made in America, France, Britain and eastern Europe? Anderson and I talked then about this, about whether Lebanon might not hold some frightful revenge for these powers, the invaders.

The book was written in 1990.

Now listen to what Osama bin Laden's said (quoted from outside the book) in his tape-recorded statement of 2004, talking about his memories of Beirut in 1982:

As I looked at those destroyed towers in Lebanon it occurred to me to punish the opressors in kind by destroying towers in America, so that it would have a taste of its own medicine.

Unnerving.
free html hit counter